Hypothalamic Criticism: Gay Male Studies and Male Feminist Criticism

Author(s): Judith Roof

Source: American Literary History , Summer, 1992, Vol. 4, No. 2 (Summer, 1992), pp.
355-364
Published by: Oxford University Press

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/489995

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
American Literary History

This content downloaded from

54.79.117.64 on Fri, 10 Nov 2023 03:33:32 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Hypothalamic Criticism:
Gay Male Studies and Male
Feminist Criticism
Judith Roof

Recently, the media informed us that the anatomical Engendering

ep- Men: The
Question
isteme of homosexuality had finally (again) been sighted. A of Male
Feminist Criticism
researcher examining the brains of 41 cadavers discovered that
Edited by Joseph Boone
the hypothalamic area reputedly responsible for male sexual
and Michael Cadden
response was atrophied or invisible in the gay specimens' brains.1
Routledge, 1990
News coverage following the announcement focused on whether
Gay Fictions: Wilde t
this discovery boded well or ill for the gay community. As might
Stonewall: Studies in a
have been expected, the responses were mixed: some gay spokes- Male Homosexual
men hailed it as a confirmation of the "natural," hence not
Literary Tradition
"perverse," character of homosexuality; others, more mindful By Claude J. Summe
of cultural constructions of sexuality, were alarmed by homo-Continuum, 1990
sexuality's instant regression into the objectified realm of so-
Hart Crane and the
ciocerebral pathology. Though I should not join the researchers
Homosexual Text: New
in letting the hypothalamus stand for an entire set of complexThresholds, New
relationships, the very form of this latest "discovery" and itsAnatomies
widespread media scrutiny provides a timely counterpoint to, By Thomas E. Yingling
"scientific" rationale for, and self-containing defense againstUniversity of Chicago
the newly visible areas of gay male and male feminist studies.Press, 1990
Making visible the invisible is the program of scientific
Rediscovering
research, gay male criticism, and male feminist criticism but to
Masculinity: Reason,
completely different ends. Science scrutinizes homosexual malesLanguage, and
"objectively," producing evidence that revitalizes hackneyed Sexuality
By Victor J. Seidler
beliefs in the "essentially" nonmasculine nature of gay men; its
exposure of the "fact" of invisibility puts gay men back in their Routledge, 1989
place, erasing them by returning them to their paradigmatic
concealment in a spectacular but stereotyped "effeminacy."
Gay male studies' identification of the homosexual in writers'
works and of the conditions that render male homosexuality
literally or critically invisible are both enlightening and liber-
ating, providing a new visibility for readings of male sexuality
in literary criticism. Thomas Yingling's book, Hart Crane and
the Homosexual Text, Claude Summers's Gay Fictions: Wilde
to Stonewall, and essays by Michael Cadden, Lee Edelman, Ed
Cohen, Wayne Koestenbaum, Michael Warner, and Christo-
pher Castiglia included in Engendering Men all develop a clear

This content downloaded from

54.79.117.64 on Fri, 10 Nov 2023 03:33:32 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
356 Hypothalamic Criticism

picture of a homosexual aesthetic or critical practice cognizant

of the possibilities and limitations of sex and gender construc-
tions.
Male feminist criticism, linked to both gay male criticism
and feminist criticism, has yet another program of visibility.
Victor Seidler's Rediscovering Masculinity represents an ob-
sessive instance of a fear of invisibility. Highly repetitive, his
book argues that an Enlightenment connection between reason
and masculinity makes men invisible to themselves, a situation
that can be resolved primarily through therapy. This book longs
nostalgically for lost emotions, painting heterosexual men as
victims of an oppressive system that operates largely beyond
their control. After observing that male self-alienation may ex-
ist, the book presents very little else in the way of critical ar-
gument or methodology.
Other male feminist studies struggle to find a place for
continued visibility for both the masculine and for male critics
through a renewed vision of gender construction attentive to
the oppressiveness of all categories. Posed consciously in op-
position to Stephen Heath's declaration of the "impossibility"
of male feminism, Engendering Men intends to exhibit male
feminist critical possibilities and certainly delivers a diverse
critical practice ranging from essays that "reexamine masculin-
ity in its social and historical contexts" (Martin 123) to con-
siderations of masculine sexual/textual practice, male critical
communities' encounters with feminisms, and readings of fe-
male writers.2 It is also insistently alert to the presence and
efforts of"heterosexual, bisexual, and gay male feminists," who,
"despite their demonstrable feminist activity," remain "invis-
ible" "in a movement" and "in the culture at large" (6-7).
Many of the essays in Engendering Men, in particular Robert
Martin's essay on Hawthorne and Robert Vorlicky's rumina-
tions on alliances, have to do with this anxiety about masculine
visibility in a critical ambience that becomes increasingly di-
verse. While Heath saw an impossible contradiction between
the positionality of the male and the stakes of feminism, En-
gendering Men resolves the contradiction by redefining feminist
method as a politics of visibility-a re-vision, rediscovery-
which then applies to males as equal victims of an oppressive,
obscuring gender system. Mired, however, in its complex re-
lation to gay male studies and feminist studies, this anthology's
biggest anxieties (and most annoying tics) are linked to problems
of recognition: to the delineation and defense of a field that
relies heavily on analogies to both gay and feminist studies, to
the proper acknowledgment of male feminist efforts, to the

This content downloaded from

54.79.117.64 on Fri, 10 Nov 2023 03:33:32 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 American Literary History 357

continual reminder of the presence of "right-thinking," well-

meaning men. This is not to say that anxieties about visibility
are necessarily harmful or appropriative; it is to question how
the specific stake in visibility shapes the interrelation among
connected but diverse critical practices.
The "feminist" in "male feminist" renders male criticism
of males visible in a new way. A dependence on the critic's
gender and position, for example, welds visibility to position.
Joseph Boone's discussion "Of Me(n) and Feminism: Who(se)
Is the Sex That Writes" in Engendering Men associates femi-
nism with gay male critics, not as a methodology but as a
corollary of identity: "Many of the men in the academy who
are feminism's most supportive 'allies,'" observes Boone, "are
gay" (23). But he goes on to observe that those sympathetic gay
men are "forgotten" in "discussions surrounding the 'male fem-
inist' controversy" (23). Just as feminism obscures sympathetic
men, male feminism forgets gay men, and gay male criticism
subsumes lesbians, reiterating a traveling analogy of oppression
posited in terms of visibility.3 The struggle for the right kind of
visibility continues among men in a battle that seems to shift
the stake of identity politics from authenticity and a "right" to
speak to the crucial importance of being seen speaking.
That all of this critical energy is expended on visibility
seems ironically phallic in a Lacanian sense, and it serves as an
antidote to the fruitfully blurred confusion of sexual/gender
categories that link and separate gay male studies, male feminist
studies, feminist studies, and lesbian studies.4 In women's stud-
ies, the lack of separation between feminist and lesbian studies
created a monolithic equivalence that was combated by a more
severe differentiation in a recourse to sexual identity (and later,
racial, ethnic, and class) positioning. In the midst of such pro-
tean intermingling, male feminist criticism seems to revert to
a practice of standpoint epistemology strangely inconsonant
with, but probably necessitated by, the tensions contained in
the apparently contradictory formulation of "male feminist"-
by the paradigmatic intermingling of categories of gender and
sexuality in the face of critical methodologies not essentially
linked to either. By and large the "male" in the male feminist
criticism of Engendering Men refers to the gender and presence
of the male critic rather than to any systematic articulation of
a specifically male feminist methodology.
This gender dependence seems to be an unfortunate re-
version to a gender-identity politics as well as a ploy for con-
tinued visibility. "Feminist" in combination with "male" links
position and identity but also compels a disintegration of that

This content downloaded from

54.79.117.64 on Fri, 10 Nov 2023 03:33:32 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
358 Hypothalamic Criticism

connection. On the one hand, gender dependence promises a

return to the Elaine Showalter/Jonathan Culler showdown over
"reading as a woman" from the other side; "reading as a man"
may summon a crucial consciousness, but like "reading as a
woman," its evocation of an apparently liberating play of po-
sitions paradoxically recalls identity, sometimes resulting in a
more limited, experientially licensed practice.5 On the other
hand, though the discussion of male feminist criticism evokes
identity, it also suggests that the identity of the critic does not
necessarily define critical practice. For example, gay men write
about female authors, straight men write about gay men, etc.
In all of this play of position, what is male feminist criticism?
Even if we see the appellation "male feminist" as somehow a
corrective response to Showalter's objections to male appro-
priation of feminist turf, the nomenclature applies only to the
essays in the collection wherein male critics read women au-
thors. What makes the rest of the "male-male" criticism in
Engendering Men "feminist"?
Male feminist studies that might be, but are not necessarily,
gay male studies are the same but different from feminist stud-
ies-depending on whether one defines feminist according to
method, subject, or the critic's gender. Engendering Men swings
somewhat consciously among a variety of critical configurations
in a kind of Kinsey scale of criticism. Its section on "Revolu-
tionary Alliances: Call and Response Across Gender" seems to
define male feminist in terms of the gender of its critic (male)
in relation to its subject (various women writers). The essays in
the section "Cleaning Out the Closet(s)" are gay male studies
that adopt a method of reading primarily through sexuality;
their "feminism" resides in a methodological analogy between
sexuality and gender rather than in the gender of the critic or
the subject matter. The same is true for the collection's other
two sections, "Power, Panic, and Pathos in Male Culture,"
which privileges gender instead of sexual orientation in male
critics' examinations of masculinity and culture; and "Men,
Feminism, and Critical Institutions," the first section of the
book, whose mixture of gay male and male feminist studies,
only loosely aligned with anything recognizably feminist, is pri-
marily concerned with institutional position.
It is in the book's first section that problems of definition
and visibility, in fact, become most troubling. After Boone's
introductory attempt to relocate male feminist studies away
from Heath's realm of impossibility, Cadden's biographical
consideration of F. O. Matthiessen firmly begins the book with
a gay male practice that can be seen as "feminist" only by the

This content downloaded from

54.79.117.64 on Fri, 10 Nov 2023 03:33:32 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 American Literary History 359

furthest stretch of one's methodological imagination. An in-

triguing enactment of the complexities of rereading sexuality in
the academy, Cadden's essay tends to undo Boone's eloquent
claims of critical debt and revives the question of what the
relation is between gay male studies and feminisms. In fact, In fact, apart from a
apart from a methodological similarity that can be attributed methodological similar
ity that can be attrib-
equally to deconstructive, historical, cultural, or psychoanalytic
uted equally to decon-
reading practices, the presence of the adjective feminist seems structive, historical,
to function mainly as a term authorizing the study of men by cultural, or psychoana
men-a term that empowers by marginalizing in order to re- lytic reading practices,
center. I wonder if this overt acknowledgment of one debt among the presence of the ad-
jective feminist seems
many is really necessary and what else is to be gained by the
to function mainly as
visibility of the "f' word. What happens when female critics
term authorizing the
practice either gay male or male feminist criticism in terms of study of men by men-
method and subject? Is that "female male feminist" criticism? a term that empowers
Perhaps this tangled morass is what the "Question" of the book's by marginalizing in or
subtitle refers to. der to recenter.

As Boone suggests, these questions of gender identity are

complicated by their connection to a gay male criticism that
completes the contiguous circle of sex/gender permutations.
While Boone credits gay males with a feminist consciousness,
gay male criticism tends to be only methodologically linked to
feminism. While this may be another illustration of the difficulty
of juggling multiple paradigms of difference, gay male studies'
allegiance to considerations of male sexual orientation seems
(appropriately) self-contained, attentive to constructions of
masculinity and their structures in discourse, but mainly atten-
tive to questions of sexuality. While the work of recovering
homosexual writers and defining a gay male aesthetic is im-
portant, it should never be seen as necessarily feminist, though
within this genre of male feminist studies, gay males seem to
occupy the overtly "feminist" position.
As they readily acknowledge, writers practicing gay male
criticism have benefited from and often rely on the insights of
feminist criticism. Tracking forms of feminist critical practice
in their own nineties fashion, the gay male studies represented
in this group of books range from gay male versions of the early
eighties feminist gynocritical project to the literary/cultural
analyses of multiple intersecting paradigms of difference.6 Gay
male recovery work, like feminist recovery work, is crucial for
establishing a visible credible field. Unlike the feminist version,
however, gay male recovery work does not need to focus on
bringing to light forgotten or ill-considered authors; instead it
uncovers the homosexual encoded within works for the most
part already established in the canon or envisions the material

This content downloaded from

54.79.117.64 on Fri, 10 Nov 2023 03:33:32 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
360 Hypothalamic Criticism

effects of homosexuality on a writer's practice. The risk is slight-

ly different, but no less significant. Instead of threatening the
centrality of white, male, bourgeois standards for literary
achievement, gay male criticism challenges the academy's ho-
mophobic suppression of anything but heterosexuality.
Summers's study of a "male homosexual literary tradition"
enacts a gay male recovery project. Examining primarily works
by gay male authors (Willa Cather and Mary Renault are the
only exceptions), Summers performs a topical/thematic recov-
ery of gay male content within the parameters of what he calls
"the strategies of fictional discourse about homosexuality" (12).
Careful to locate this homosexual practice historically and ac-
knowledging the broad diversity of homosexuality in his intro-
duction, Summers sets out to discern fictional evidences of an
emerging homosexual identity as it informs fiction written about
gay male characters. Despite his initial consciousness of meth-
od, Summers really performs a fairly traditional thematic read-
ing of such authors as Wilde, Forster, Williams, and Vidal,
sprinkled with supporting biographical tidbits; the only differ-
ence is that his "theme" is male homosexuality.
While Summers's stated agenda is "the idea that the rep-
resentation of gay men and lesbians in literature is a vitally
important subject both for its own sake and for its consequences
in the real world" (11), Yingling complicates and enriches con-
cepts of representation and homosexuality in his study of Hart
Crane, Hart Crane and the Homosexual Text. Going beyond
recovery, Yingling's premise is "that Crane's work is evidence
of a 'new threshold' of gay subjectivity in moder Western
culture, one that questions the received conventions for its in-
terpretation and representation" (2). Yingling's purpose "is to
project a 'new anatomy' or structural vocabulary within which
to investigate the homosexual as a minority discourse" (2).
Cannily merging close textual reading with cultural context and
an attention to his own critical maneuvers, Yingling's book
convincingly enacts new readings of Crane's poetry, while re-
vealing the critical and cultural investments that have shaped
the tradition of Crane criticism. Yingling's method of reconfi-
guring the heterosexual shape of traditional narrative not only
provides a radically different understanding of Crane's endeavor
but also reveals the investments of those critics who, in ignoring
Crane's homosexual difference, read his poetry as unfinished,
mystical, or immature. Understanding the effect of Crane's sex-
uality on his writing, as Yingling illustrates, enables a reading
that discerns the originality of Crane's formal experiments and
reveals the artistry of his densely compact imagery.

This content downloaded from

54.79.117.64 on Fri, 10 Nov 2023 03:33:32 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 American Literary History 361

In its real attention to context and its ability to articulate

the interrelation of sexuality, class, race, and gender, Yingling's
book is gay male studies at its very best. It is equaled only by
the several essays (both "male feminist" and "gay male") in
Engendering Men that are able to perform a similar feat: An-
drew Ross's reading of the complicity of family and construc-
tions of masculine in "Cowboys, Cadillacs, and Cosmonauts:
Families, Film Genres, and Technocultures"; Warer's recon-
sideration of the construction of heterosexuality in "Homo-
narcissism; or Heterosexuality"; Koestenbaum's reading of Os-
car Wilde; and Mark Seltzer's interesting but somewhat inde-
terminate cultural analysis of industry, nature, and sexuality in
"The Love-Master." What sets these works apart is their ability
to treat multiple contexts.
But while gay male studies promises and frequently delivers
a new and different vision, it also sometimes slides perilously
close to a sexist collapse of the category "homosexual." While
there is no reason gay male studies should be necessarily con-
cerned with lesbians, gay male studies threatens to subsume gay
studies in general, eclipsing gender difference (and lesbians) by
standing in for all homosexuals. For example, in the first line
of his book, Summers enlists lesbians in his homocritical task:
"This book is a study of gay fictions, by which is variously
meant the fictional representation of male homosexuals by gay
male and lesbian writers" (11). That "gay fictions" are con-
cerned only with representations of gay men and that lesbians'
representations of male homosexuals are subsumed within an
overarching gay male program reveals Summers's lack of at-
tention to the very difference gender accords among gay men
and lesbians. The problem is not the focus on gay men; the
problem is a consistent disregard for the importance of gender,
race, and other differences among homosexuals. Putting les-
bians in service of gay men within the same thematic paradigm
without recognizing their very different critical and cultural
position performs a sexist erasure the way male feminist dis-
cussion sometimes performs a heterosexist erasure of gay men.
Gay male studies often eclipses the feminist woman or
occupies her position. Gay male criticism included in Engen-
dering Men tends to triangulate itself with the work of white
women, as, for example, when Edelman does "a gay reading"
of Frank Lentricchia's "framing of homosexuality" by recourse
to Lentricchia's response to Gilbert and Gubar. But feminist
critics, when they are employed at all in gay male studies, are
ways of getting back to the man; they become a means of critical
exchange among men. While Michael Cooper briefly mentions

This content downloaded from

54.79.117.64 on Fri, 10 Nov 2023 03:33:32 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
362 Hypothalamic Criticism

lesbian difference, essays like Cohen's "Gay 'Identity,' Gay

Studies" that speak to the larger issue of "Gay Studies" pay
formulaic lip service to the lesbian as a mere subcategory of
the more pressing gay male center, a practice that reincarates
a kind of unexamined sexism. Cohen, whose personal-experi-
ence approach to the issue apparently excuses its gay-male-o-
centrism, jokingly appropriates all positions for men like him-
self. When discussing the problematic nature of gender/sexual
categories, Cohen recounts the "facetious" practice that resulted
when his "dyke" friends dubbed him and other fellow "'fem'-
men-ists" "male lesbians" (174)--a jest perhaps, but too close
to the truth of habitual masculinist assumptions to be really
funny.
That the discovery of gay male hypothalamic lack comes
at a time when gay male and male feminist studies are emerging
as disciplines in the academy is probably no accident. An-
nounced amid the plethora of reactionary critiques of academic
"political correctness," the gay male "lack" rebuts the polem-
ical discussion of floating masculine constructions that threaten
to destabilize male gender privilege. While gay male and male
feminist studies establish a Richian continuum among men that
interrogates both masculine and heterosexual privilege, ana-
tomically differentiating gay males from the hyperhypothalamic
masculine mainstream concocts a definitive difference that rees-
tablishes the potentially blurred sexual lines. The "scientific"
gay male "difference" corrects the gay male, male feminist, and
feminist drive to denaturalize the masculine.
It is interesting that in 1991 the definitive biological dif-
ference between gay and straight men is the invisibility of a
part, when in 1989, the difference was determined to be too
much visibility after a Dutch researcher reported finding larger
hypothalami in gay male cadavers ("Sex"). Going from the
discovery of extralarge hypothalami to the discovery of invisible
hypothalamic areas reflects an anxiety about the right kind of
visibility, suggesting the direction in which the politics of visible
difference might go. The 1989 discovery of hypothalamic large-
ness excited little comment in the US, in part because it was a
"foreign" discovery, in part because the researcher insisted on
the tentative nature of his findings, but mostly, I suspect, be-
cause the idea of larger hypothalami contradicted feminine ster-
eotypes of gay men. The 1991 discovery became highly visible,
though equally tentative, because it reconfirms and enables the
dismissal of an entire group as visibly different in a culturally
acceptable way. The invisible hypothalamus, though a visible

This content downloaded from

54.79.117.64 on Fri, 10 Nov 2023 03:33:32 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 American Literary History 363

difference, fits so neatly into preconceived notions that it invites

a re-disappearance-not a fading occasioned by public igno-
rance but one stimulated by the reconfirmation of categories.
As has happened sometimes with women's studies, the ability
to sexually differentiate- visibility-becomes the ability to se-
clude and ultimately dismiss work that questions the status of
such sequestering categories in the first place. What is "visible"
quickly disappears.
The threat posed by gay male and male feminist studies is
similar to that posed by feminist studies: all undermine the
power and privilege predicated on the maintenance of natu-
ralized categories of gender and sexuality, confuse divisions
sustaining repressive orders, and rearticulate human relations.
If these potentially liberating critical practices can themselves If these potentially lib-
avoid an excessive dependence on identity categories that re- erating critical practices
can themselves avoid
calcify differences in the interest of defensive positioning and
an excessive depen-
"truth in labeling," some tangible effect other than simple vis-
dence on identity cate-
ibility might be achieved. While establishing and "legitimating" gories that recalcify dif-
visible categories may be politically positive, such a tactic also ferences in the interest
has its drawbacks. Defining and delimiting subgenres, such as of defensive positioning
gay studies, locates critical material on special shelves in book- and "truth in labeling,"
some tangible effect
stores and libraries, separates feminist/gay male/lesbian/male
other than simple visi-
feminist critics from the larger discussion of literature, film, bility might be
theory, or culture, and reinscribes in the interest of"visibility" achieved.
the categories such studies often explode. Such visibility undoes
the very threat such intermingling of categories creates and thus
limits engaged efficacy. We need to question the various motives
for the drive for visibility: how politically effective visibility
really is, how our privileging of visibility reiterates its own op-
pressive agenda, how much visibility relates to an anxious desire
to establish identity or reaffirm the politically correct ego. The
hypothalamus should be a lesson: visibility isn't everything.

Notes

1. See Maugh and Zamichow. The news item briefly describes the research
of Simon LeVay, who looked at the brains of 19 homosexual men, 16
presumably heterosexual men, and 6 heterosexual women, all of whom died
of AIDS complications. Despite the essay's sweeping claim, this says nothing
about lesbians. The last sentence of the article notes that "LeVay was unable
to obtain brains from lesbians because few contract and die from AIDS."
Following the logic here, either lesbian hypothalami must be larger or ques-
tions of size and visibility are relevant only to males. This was not the first

This content downloaded from

54.79.117.64 on Fri, 10 Nov 2023 03:33:32 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
364 Hypothalamic Criticism

such discovery. In 1989 a Dutch researcher found that the hypothalami of

gay men were larger than normal (see "Sex"). The discovery of a hypotha-
lamic deficiency in gay men was, however, the first such research loudly
bruited through the media.

2. Joseph Boone cites Heath's paper as presented at the MLA, noting that
Heath's claim of impossibility is omitted from the paper as included in
Jardine and Smith.

3. This traveling analogy has already been a feature of feminist criticism,

as I argue in A Lure of Knowledge.

4. According to Jacqueline Rose, Lacan actually "refused any crude iden-

tification of the phallus with the order of the visible," though he does say
that "one might easily say that this signifier [the phallus] is chosen as what
stands out as most easily seized upon in the real of sexual copulation" (42).

5. Boone refers to comments made by Showalter in "Critical Cross-Dress-

ing" about Culler's discussion of "reading as a woman" in On Deconstruc-
tion.

6. Gynocriticism is a term coined by Showalter ("Toward a Feminist

Poetics" 131).

Works Cited

Culler, Jonathan. On Deconstruc- Rose, Jacqueline. "Introduction II."

tion: Theory and Criticism AfterFeminine Sexuality: Jacques Lacan
Structuralism. Ithaca: Cornell UP,
and the ecole freudienne. Ed. Juliet
1982. Mitchell and Rose. Trans. Rose. New
York: Norton, 1985. 42.
Heath, Stephen. "Men in Femi-
nism: Men and Feminist Theory."
"Sex and the Hypothalamus: Le Dif-
Jardine and Smith 41-46. ference?" Economist 27 May 1989:
86.
Jardine, Alice, and Paul Smith, eds.
Men in Feminism. New York: Me- Showalter, Elaine, "Critical Cross-
thuen, 1987. Dressing: Male Feminists and the
Woman of the Year." Raritan 3.2
Maugh, Thomas II, and Nora Zam- (1983): 130-49. Rpt. in Jardine and
Smith 116-32.
ichow. "Finding suggests a biological
link to homosexuality." Philadel-
phia Inquirer 30 Aug. 1991: 2A. . "Toward a Feminist Poet-
ics." The New Feminist Criticism:
Essays on Women, Literature, and
Roof, Judith. A Lure of Knowledge:
Lesbian Sexuality and Theory. New
Theory. Ed. Showalter. New York:
York: Columbia UP, 1991. Pantheon, 1985. 125-43.

This content downloaded from

54.79.117.64 on Fri, 10 Nov 2023 03:33:32 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms